DURHAM — Town Council members voted 6-1 to approve as amended an ordinance establishing an inspection process for health and safety standards of residential rental properties, though the proposal had residents sounding off during Monday night’s public hearing over the need for more clarity of the ordinance.

Landlords’ remarks included their feeling that they were being singled out and the inspections should be performed uniformly across town properties, not just in rental housing units.

This new “chapter 72” of the town’s general legislation aims to create a set of housing standards for the residential rental housing stock in Durham and amend the Fire Department section of the townwide master fee schedule to add fees accompanying the project.

The fee schedule established for the program would be $130 per property and $25 per unit on the property being inspected.

Before the meeting Town Administrator Todd Selig said that in 2011 there were two fires that were “close calls” where the Fire department reported after having gone through the burned areas they found various health and safety violations.

These were situations, Selig said, that the Fire Department reported “had someone been home there would have likely been a fatality.”

Fire Chief Corey Landry named one of those fires saying it was a scenario the provision could help the community avoid in the future.

“We proved that by the fire on Edgewood,” Landry said referring to a Nov. 26, 2011, two-alarm fire that struck 16 Edgewood Drive would have likely proved fatal had its residents been home. The four-bedroom residence had only two smoke detectors in place, half the number required for such a dwelling, and both were not working.

Also before the meeting the standards in the ordinance would address what Selig described as “big ticket items” to include issues such as a residence infested by insects or rodents; defective plumbing or back up of sewage; lack of smoke detectors or working fire alarms; plaster flaking from walls or holes in walls; and inadequate heating devices, among other issues.

Inspections would be carried out on common areas and appliances of residences and would not extend, Landry explained, into any owner-occupied space that a tenant does not share. Roughly 700 residential rentals exist in the town. Selig said the intent to ensure that rental properties are adhering to state guidelines already in place.

“We are intent on creating a safe environment,” Councilor William Cote said.

Selig said the Fire Department would be tasked with administering the new program and a fee structure will be included as part of the program to recuperate any costs of running it. He said this would be so taxpayers at large would not bear the burden of maintaining for-profit rental properties.

Before the public hearing, Selig told Foster’s the Durham Landlord Association (DLA) has not been supportive of the initiative for a variety of reasons and that he’s received feedback from at least some landlords in town.

“Some landlords believe strongly in a “live free or die” mentality and don’t believe in regulations (by government),” he said.

One of those owners, 36-year town resident and 33-year rental property owner Wesley Smith, said he felt this provision should apply to all properties in the town and called it discriminatory otherwise. He also said there are too many “holes and gaps” in the provision, though Landry has a specific list of items of concern to identify already available to the public.

Smith noted that work done to execute inspections is “what we’re paying the Fire Department for.”

Ted Mulligan, a student housing landlord, said the initiative comes across as disingenuous as he feels it is more far-reaching than just fire code safety; and also seems duplicative for sororities and fraternities as there are already inspections for places of assembly that occur twice per year.

Chairman Jay Gooze said, “There’s no way to protect and do what we need to do without getting all the rental properties.”

Councilor Julian Smith said he felt the ordinance was very disingenuous and he was actually offended by it.

An attorney for the DLA said there was indeed an issue of equal protection in implementing this ordinance at this stage targeting only rental properties, and also stated that the ordinance is unnecessary with regulations already in place.

Most who spoke during the public hearing were in support of public safety but opposed the ordinance saying they wanted more clarification of what exactly the inspection process would entail.

Selig reminded residents that there will be a review process of the program conducted regularly and that there is also an appeal process in place for owners who disagree with violations found by the Fire Department.

“Issuing new powers without a clear sense of accountability and what appears to be an ambiguous arm being extended, it does cause some anxiety,” one property owner said.

Another, unimpressed with how the ordinance is being proposed stated, “Chickens in Durham get more due diligence.”